I see what you did there...

Buffett is a hypocrite. Most have bought into his homespun "Oracle of Ohmaha" persona but he is just as ruthless when it comes to business as any other billionaire. He bought the physical assets of several telecoms for pennies on a dollar that were paid for by the losses of shareholders of those companies. In turn, he has done well for holders of his Berkshire stock. he is a shrewd businessman not a social champion.

? no one is saying he is only a "social champion". (Yes he has done and continues to do tremendous good with donations to charities that exceed the combined income of every single Plimate, but that isn't the point.)

Of course he is a shrewd businessman. He has been very successful at picking good companies to buy. Some at rock-bottom prices others at higher prices. He has been successful at making many of those companies much stronger and more profitable than they were.

So what if he purchases telecoms at pennies on the dollars? That is what they were worth. Did shareholders of the companies that failed pay a price? Of course, that is normal. Nothing wrong or illicit or even immoral about that.

If all he was was a "social champion", I wouldn't care less about his views. The fact that he is such a shrewd businessman that he became the richest man in the world starting from nothing means that he is very intelligent about business and economics.

An endorsement from him helps because he is a shrewd businessman, not because he wants everyone to have a free lunch or whatever "social cause" is popular.

Actually, Buffet is a shrewd businessman AND a social champion. The reason that he is a social champion is because he is always pushing for higher taxes on the rich, look up any article and you will see him rip apart Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

You sneaky...

richest man? I thought he gave away a LARGE percentage of his money to the Gates' charity foundation.

Crazy isn't? He's still the richest man, I think. That's some cake, right there.

According to this it's:
1) Warren Buffett
2) Carlos Slim Helú
3) Bill Gates

Funny, I seem to recall reading an article not long ago where Buffet said he would be happy no matter which of the three become president.

On another note: Does Buffet suport taxing the rich (wealth tax) or on taxing those who are trying to become rich (income tax)?

Funny thing about that...

We tax income, not wealth, so saying those tax breaks were only for the rich is a little shortsighted.

The income tax structure as it stands is great for stratifying our socioeconomic structure, since it creates larger and larger barriers to upward mobility.

Hold on while I find a cigar for you!

How is this news? I threw my support to him months ago.

Oh that's right gas went to $4 a gallon here and I fell to 6th richest man...

Yes he does:

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax percentage than his secretary.

Nope. Read it again.

Buffett's income falls under captial gains not income. He is comparing apples to oranges.

The "tax the rich" income tax system in the USA does not tax the rich. It taxes high income earners. There is a very subtle difference there.

If Buffett stopped earning money on his investments he would stop paying capital gains taxes on those investments and he would remain rich. If his secretary stopped working she would also stop paying income tax. She would also remain poor.

Not all people who pay capital gains taxes are rich nor are all those who do not pay income taxes poor.

Income tax = a tax that prevents you from moving up because the more you make the more they take.

Capital gains tax = a tax on investments that is only paid if (and when) you turn a profit on sales of stocks and other investments.

What Buffett has put forth is a logical fallacy.

Right. The man doesn't understand economics.

You sound like a trickle down guy.

I did not say he does not understand economics. I said he used a logical fallacy.

He is making a very simple point. He's not discussing any of the various tax catagories or the various tax rates income versus capital gains may trigger.

He is simply and very clearly saying that, bottom line, he was taxed 17% on $46 million and his secretary was taxed on her bottom line of $60K at 30%.

I believe he understands exactly what he is talking about and he's not at all confused with income vs wealth or realism vs logical fallacy.

It's really not that difficult to understand what his meaning is, if you leave out the spin.

His "meaning" is based on a logical fallacy. You can't compare his capital gains taxes to his secretary's income taxes. They are two completely different things.

If his secretary was taxed at a higher rate on her capital gains taxes then he would have a logical argument to make.